| The first excerpt represents the past or something you must release, and is drawn from Under the Andes by Rex Stout: "Here you go, Hal! here's some grub. But what the deuce is
it? By Jove, it's dried fish! Now, where in the name of--"
But we wasted no more time in talk, for we were half starved.
The stuff was not bad; to us who had been fasting for something
like thirty-six hours--for our idea of time was extremely hazy--it
was a gorgeous banquet. And close by there was a basin full of
water.
"Pretty decent sort of beggars, I say," came Harry's voice in
the darkness. "But who are they?"
"Ask Felipe," I answered, for by this time I was well
convinced of the nature and identity of our captors. "As I said,
|
The second excerpt represents the present or the deciding factor of the moment, and is drawn from Tom Sawyer Abroad by Mark Twain: thing they said perfectly plain; and he flung out
printed bills to them that told about the balloon, and
said it was going to Europe. Tom got so he could
steer straight for a tree till he got nearly to it, and then
dart up and skin right along over the top of it. Yes,
and he showed Tom how to land her; and he done it
first-rate, too, and set her down in the prairies as soft
as wool. But the minute we started to skip out the
professor says, "No, you don't!" and shot her up in
the air again. It was awful. I begun to beg, and so
did Jim; but it only give his temper a rise, and he
|
The third excerpt represents the future or something you must embrace, and is drawn from Sophist by Plato: which is the negation of Not-being (compare Parm.).
But he is not thinking of this when he says that Being comprehends Not-
being. Again, we should probably go back for the true explanation to the
influence which the Eleatic philosophy exercised over him. Under 'Not-
being' the Eleatic had included all the realities of the sensible world.
Led by this association and by the common use of language, which has been
already noticed, we cannot be much surprised that Plato should have made
classes of Not-being. It is observable that he does not absolutely deny
that there is an opposite of Being. He is inclined to leave the question,
merely remarking that the opposition, if admissible at all, is not
expressed by the term 'Not-being.'
|
